Government of Cape Verde

United Nations Development Programme

Other partners:

National Executing Agency: Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Fisheries

Provincial Cooperating Agencies: Municipal Authorities of the affected Islands

Integrated Participatory Ecosystem Management

in and Around Protected Areas, Phase I


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 :
Part Ia . Situation Analysis
Part Ib. Strategy
Part II. Results Framework
Part IIa. Strategic Results Framework
Part II b. Summary of GEF/Government/UNDP Input Budgets
Detailed GEF/Government/UNDP input budget
Part III. Implementation Arrangements
Part IV. Legal Context
Annex 1.1 : Terms of Reference for project managements units, major staff
and subcontracts
Annex 1.2 : Indicative Project Workplan
Annex 1.3 : Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Annex 1.4: Co-financing confirmation letters
Section 2:
Approved Full Project Brief and Annexes / 3
3
5
5
10
13
18
22
26
49
55
62


SECTION 1

Part Ia. Situation Analysis

Cape Verde is undertaking various efforts and activities to conserve its biodiversity, land, and water resources, ranging from ongoing legislative reforms, to the proposed creation of new protected areas, basic research, and public education and awareness. These efforts may succeed, to a greater or less extent, in meeting the national interest in conserving natural resources and limiting land degradation and desertification. However, it is unlikely that current and planned efforts and initiatives will be sufficient to effectively conserve globally important biodiversity for the following reasons: 1) a lack of focus within these efforts on biodiversity specific issues; 2) insufficient national experience in developing and managing protected areas and buffer zones with community participatory mechanisms, or the legal and institutional framework necessary to achieve biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; 3) insufficient financial resources for protected area development and management, or for research and monitoring activities; 4) agricultural and socio-economic initiatives and developments that, unless systematically orientated towards the conservation of biodiversity, will not reduce resource use threats and may even increase them; and 5) current levels of awareness raising and education that are insufficient to gain the understanding and cooperation of local stakeholders, the greater commitment of decision makers, or the necessary changes in attitude and behavior of the general public.

The GEF supported Alternative programme will undertake the additional activities necessary to overcome current legal, planning, institutional, financial, and capacity barriers and gaps within baseline activities in order to demonstrate viable approaches to biodiversity conservation and resource management within a newly established system of protected areas in Cape Verde. In this way, the programme will ensure global biodiversity conservation, mitigation of land degradation, as well as promote national sustainable development goals.

The Overall Development Goal of the programme is the conservation of globally significant biodiversity and the reduction of land degradation and desertification in priority ecosystems of Cape Verde. The Government of Cape Verde, in partnership with local communities, will conserve globally and nationally significant biodiversity in six newly established protected areas, and in surrounding landscapes, by developing and applying new strategies for ecosystem protection and sustainable resource management.

The national institutional and legal framework is described in Section 2. A description of lessons learned that have influenced project design is provided in Annex 10 of Section 2. An independent review of the project design is provided in Annex 3 of Section 2.

Part Ib. Strategy

Cape Verde’s approach to sustainable development while conserving biodiversity, addressing climate change, and mitigating land degradation, and its national commitment to these goals are described in Section 2. UNDP’s programme in support to these goals is described in Section 2, while the specific activities undertaken through this project in support of policy development and strengthened national capacities are described in Section 2.

146

Part II. Results Framework

Intended Outcome as stated in the Country Results Framework: Improved national capacity to negotiate and implement global environment commitments.
Outcome indicator as stated in the Country Programme Results and Resources Framework, including baseline and target
Outcome indicator: Volume of resources mobilized from global environmental funding mechanisms/facilities during the current year, e.g. Global Environment Facility, Montreal protocol, Clean Development Mechanism. Baseline: N/A. Target: Financial resources for full biodiversity project mobilized.
Applicable Strategic Area of Support: Global Conventions and Funding Mechanisms
Partnership Strategy: The UNDP office will support capacity building at DGA, DGCI and MAAP, to insure adequate resource mobilization.
Project title: Integrated participatory ecosystem management in and around protected areas, Phase I
Project Number : CVI/03/…/A/…/99
Intended Outputs / Output targets for Phase 1 / Indicative Activities / Inputs
Outcome 1: Policy, legal framework and capacities in place for conservation of biodiversity and management of protected areas / New Laws.
Media dissemination.
Advocacy group for biodiversity conservation. Agreement of collaboration with each relevant ministry. New land tenure systems.
Decision-makers educated.
Native tree species for reforestation.
Biological pest control. Environmental impact assessment guidelines.
Capacity to monitor/enforce EIAs. / Law on Protected Areas and Law on Protection of Fauna and Flora enacted within first 6 months
Various media (television, radio and newspapers) have disseminated information on new laws within six months of legislation being enacted
At national level, at least one advocacy group (lawyers, artists, businessmen, civic clubs, etc.) for biodiversity conservation created by end of year 1
At least one meeting held and one agreement of collaboration with each relevant ministry signed within first 6 months
New land tenure systems in place on private lands around parks by end of year 2 (for first two PAs) and by end of year 6 (for remaining four PAs)
Number of decision-makers educated on importance of biodiversity and protected areas by end of year 2 ½
DGASP using native tree species for reforestation projects in vicinity of PAs by end of year 3
MAP actively supporting biological pest control in adjacent landscapes to PAs by end of year 3
Germplasm bank and/or botanical garden managing program for native plant varieties by end of year 5
Environ. impact assessment guidelines implemented by end of year 1
DGA capacity to monitor/enforce EIAs strengthened by end of year 2 / Equipment, technical support from Ministry, manpower from government agencies, and funding from GEF and other donors, as per attached budget tables.
Outcome 2: Institutional framework in place for participatory management of ecosystems / Increased capacity for ecosystem management.
PACU.
Strategic plans.
Coordination mechanisms.
PACU managers and staff trained.
Visitor/user fees and penalties/fines.
Long-term state budget support secured.
Framework for long term sustainable financial mechanism. / DGA (Direction of Environment) agency has increased capacity for ecosystem management
PACU (Protected Areas Coordination Unit) formally established and operational by end of year 2
Strategic plans for priority issues created and implemented by end of year 2
Information sharing and coordination mechanisms in place between PACU and PAs, state resource agencies, and international partners by end of year 2
PACU managers and staff trained in PA management
Policies and regulations on visitor/user fees and penalties/fines in place by end of year 2
Long-term state budget support secured by end of year 6
Framework for long term sustainable financial mechanism developed by year 4 / Equipment, technical support from Ministry, manpower from government agencies, and funding from GEF and other donors, as per attached budget tables.
Outcome 3: Two natural parks created and under participatory community management / Natural parks formally established.
Managers and staff trained.
Baseline studies on ecological functions, socio-economic issues.
PAs classified into management zones,
Steering committees.
PA master plans and sub-plans.
GIS-based natural resource monitoring.
Visitor/user fees and penalties/fines.
Trust fund for PA system. Long-term state budget support. / Natural parks formally established, staff hired, infrastructure in place (2 by end of year 3, 4 by end of year 5 ½)
Natural parks managers and staff trained in PA management
Baseline studies on ecological factors completed by end of year 1 and end of year 5
Baseline studies on socio-economic factors completed by end of year 1 and end of year 5
PAs classified into management zones
Steering committee for community participatory management of PAs established and operating
PA master plans and sub-plans implemented
GIS-based natural resource monitoring systems in place
At least one collaboration with PAs outside Cape Verde
PA systems for visitor/user fees and penalties/fines implemented
Trust fund for PA system in place by end of year 7
Long-term state budget support for PA management (staff, operations) secured by end of year 7 / Equipment, technical support from Ministry, manpower from government agencies, and funding from GEF and other donors, as per attached budget tables.
Outcome 4: Strengthen capacity of local actors, and promote sustainable integrated, participatory ecosystem management / Stakeholder associations.
Local stakeholders trained and educated.
Sustainable livestock management systems.
Community woodlots for fuelwood and fodder.
Soil and water conservation practices.
State reforestation. Local communities replace use of agro-chemicals with biological pest. Invasive flora reduced. Hunting and harvesting pressure reduced.
Mini-grant facility. / Stakeholder associations and cooperation mechanisms for ecosystem management operating by end of year 2
Local stakeholders trained and educated on sustainable resource management
Sustainable livestock management systems in place in and around PAs by year 5. Community woodlots for fuelwood and fodder operating by end of year 4
Soil and water conservation practices being used throughout landscapes adjacent to PAs by end of year 4
State reforestation areas providing wood and fodder resources to local communities by end of year 4
Local communities replace use of agro-chemicals with biological pest control by end of year 4
Invasive flora reduced through sustainable exploitation by end of year 4
Hunting and harvesting pressure on threatened species reduced
Mini-grant facility for non-profit sustainable use of biodiversity operating in local communities adjacent to PAs / Equipment, technical support from Ministry, manpower from government agencies, and funding from GEF and other donors, as per attached budget tables.
Outcome 5: Local communities benefiting from alternative livelihood opportunities / Alternative livelihood programs.
Local farmers have increased crop yields and restored soil fertility.
Local farmers have diversified production and are cooperating in marketing.
Tourism income increased.
Credit and savings system for profit-generating micro-projects operating. / Strategies for site-specific alternative livelihood programs formulated by end of year 3
Local farmers have increased crop yields and restored soil fertility
Local farmers have diversified production and are cooperating in marketing of agricultural products
Ecotourism regulations and programs are in place at each PA, tourism visits have increased, and income from tourism (lodging, food, guide services, crafts) has increased
Credit and savings system for profit-generating micro-projects operating / Equipment, technical support from Ministry, manpower from government agencies, and funding from GEF and other donors, as per attached budget tables.
Outcome 6: National stakeholders aware and supportive of environmental conservation goals / Public awareness campaign.
Environmental education curricula.
Parliamentarians and decision-makers educated.
NGO partners for conservation supporting project activities. / Public awareness campaign on environment and PAs completed, including two training sessions for journalists, dissemination of print/audio/video media materials, creation and sales of PA field guides and maps, and promotion of PAs in public and private tourism publications
Teachers using environmental education curricula and students trained and participating in environmental protection activities by year 3
Parliamentarians and decision-makers educated on and supporting biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use (continuous)
NGO partners for conservation supporting project activities, with at least one NGO at each project site actively promoting project environmental objectives by year 2 / Equipment, technical support from Ministry, manpower from government agencies, and funding from GEF and other donors, as per attached budget tables

146

GEF Cash Contribution: 3,585,600 $US

Personnel / 625,000
Administrative Support / 0
M & E / 254,000
Mission Costs / 86,000
National Consultants / 122,500
Subcontracts / 1,826,000
Training / 483,250
Equipment / 76,850
Miscellaneous / 112,000
MicroCredit / 0
Admin. Charges / 0
TOTAL / 3,585,600

Government/DGIS Cash Contribution: 2,152,100 $US

Personnel / 0
Administrative Support / 760,000
M & E / 90,000
Mission Costs / 42,000
National Consultants / 0
Subcontracts / 945,000
Training / 50,000
Equipment / 131,000
Miscellaneous / 44,100
MicroCredit / 90,000
Admin. Charges / 0
TOTAL / 2,152,100

UNDP Cash Contribution: 465,000 $US

Personnel / 0
Administrative Support / 13,000
M & E / 60,000
Mission Costs / 0
National Consultants / 0
Subcontracts / 225,700
Training / 82,700
Equipment / 0
Miscellaneous / 29,000
MicroCredit / 42,000
Admin. Charges / 12,600
TOTAL / 465,000

146

Part II b Detailed Input Budget

Detailed GEF/Government/UNDP Budget
GEF / DGIS / UNDP
BL / Description / m/m / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / SubTotal / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / SubTotal / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / SubTotal / TOTAL
11 / Personnel
11.01 / CTA / 48 / 130000 / 130000 / 130000 / 130000 / 520000 / 0 / 0 / 520000
11.02 / PA Planning Specialist / 1.5 / 15000 / 7500 / 22500 / 0 / 0 / 22500
11.03 / Finance and Credit Sp / 0.75 / 7500 / 7500 / 15000 / 0 / 0 / 15000
11.04 / Livelihood Specialist / 1.5 / 7500 / 15000 / 22500 / 0 / 0 / 22500
11.05 / Law Specialist (Intl) / 0.75 / 7500 / 7500 / 15000 / 0 / 0 / 15000
11.06 / Ecotourism Specialist / 0.75 / 7500 / 7500 / 15000 / 0 / 0 / 15000
11.07 / Landscape Specialist / 0.75 / 7500 / 7500 / 15000 / 0 / 0 / 15000
11.99 / Subtotal / 182500 / 130000 / 182500 / 130000 / 625000 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 625000
13 / Administrative Support
13.01 / Project Nat. Manager / 48 / 0 / 17000 / 17000 / 17000 / 17000 / 68000 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 68000
13.02 / Proj. Financial Assist. / 48 / 0 / 8000 / 8000 / 8000 / 8000 / 32000 / 0 / 32000
13.03 / Proj. Secretary / 48 / 0 / 6000 / 6000 / 6000 / 6000 / 24000 / 0 / 24000
13.04 / Proj. Driver / 48 / 0 / 4000 / 4000 / 4000 / 4000 / 16000 / 0 / 16000
13.05 / Site Manager (X2) / 48 / 0 / 25000 / 25000 / 25000 / 25000 / 100000 / 0 / 100000
13.06 / NRM/Biology Specialist (X2) / 48 / 0 / 22000 / 22000 / 22000 / 22000 / 88000 / 0 / 88000
13.07 / M&E Specialist (X2) / 48 / 0 / 22000 / 22000 / 22000 / 22000 / 88000 / 0 / 88000
13.08 / Site Assist. (X2) / 48 / 0 / 14000 / 14000 / 14000 / 14000 / 56000 / 0 / 56000
13.09 / Site Secretary (X2) / 48 / 0 / 12000 / 12000 / 12000 / 12000 / 48000 / 0 / 48000